开放性和反思性思维预测推理和元推理:来自比率偏见冲突任务的证据

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Thinking & Reasoning Pub Date : 2023-09-22 DOI:10.1080/13546783.2023.2259548
Henry W. Strudwicke, Glen E. Bodner, Paul Williamson, Michelle M. Arnold
{"title":"开放性和反思性思维预测推理和元推理:来自比率偏见冲突任务的证据","authors":"Henry W. Strudwicke, Glen E. Bodner, Paul Williamson, Michelle M. Arnold","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2023.2259548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AbstractDispositional measures of actively open-minded thinking and cognitive reflection both predict reasoning accuracy on conflict problems. Here we investigated their relative impact on meta-reasoning. To this end, we measured reasoning accuracy and two indices of meta-reasoning performance – conflict detection sensitivity and meta-reasoning discrimination – using a ratio-bias task. Our key predictors were actively open-minded thinking and cognitive reflection, and numeracy, cognitive ability, and mindware instantiation were controlled for. Actively open-minded thinking was a better predictor of reasoning accuracy and meta-reasoning discrimination than cognitive reflection, and was the only dispositional measure to significantly predict conflict detection sensitivity. Thus, susceptibility to biased reasoning and meta-reasoning may be better captured by a reasoner’s ability to engage in open-minded thinking than by their ability to engage in reflective thinking.Keywords: Meta-reasoningindividual differencesbias susceptibilitythinking dispositions AcknowledgmentsThis research was supported by an HDR Research Award from the College of Education, Psychology and Social Work at Flinders University. The authors would like to thank Matthew Christian and Olivia Burton for their feedback on an earlier draft of this manuscript.Author contributionsH.W.S and M.M.A conceived the study. H.W.S programmed the experiment and collected the data. H.W.S and P.W analyzed the data. H.W.S and G.E.B co-wrote the manuscript and P.W made critical edits.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Data availability statementThe data are publicly available at Open Sciences Framework: https://osf.io/jm63r/?view_only=15070473806541548adc224496c86660","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Open-minded and reflective thinking predicts reasoning and meta-reasoning: evidence from a ratio-bias conflict task\",\"authors\":\"Henry W. Strudwicke, Glen E. Bodner, Paul Williamson, Michelle M. Arnold\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2023.2259548\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AbstractDispositional measures of actively open-minded thinking and cognitive reflection both predict reasoning accuracy on conflict problems. Here we investigated their relative impact on meta-reasoning. To this end, we measured reasoning accuracy and two indices of meta-reasoning performance – conflict detection sensitivity and meta-reasoning discrimination – using a ratio-bias task. Our key predictors were actively open-minded thinking and cognitive reflection, and numeracy, cognitive ability, and mindware instantiation were controlled for. Actively open-minded thinking was a better predictor of reasoning accuracy and meta-reasoning discrimination than cognitive reflection, and was the only dispositional measure to significantly predict conflict detection sensitivity. Thus, susceptibility to biased reasoning and meta-reasoning may be better captured by a reasoner’s ability to engage in open-minded thinking than by their ability to engage in reflective thinking.Keywords: Meta-reasoningindividual differencesbias susceptibilitythinking dispositions AcknowledgmentsThis research was supported by an HDR Research Award from the College of Education, Psychology and Social Work at Flinders University. The authors would like to thank Matthew Christian and Olivia Burton for their feedback on an earlier draft of this manuscript.Author contributionsH.W.S and M.M.A conceived the study. H.W.S programmed the experiment and collected the data. H.W.S and P.W analyzed the data. H.W.S and G.E.B co-wrote the manuscript and P.W made critical edits.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Data availability statementThe data are publicly available at Open Sciences Framework: https://osf.io/jm63r/?view_only=15070473806541548adc224496c86660\",\"PeriodicalId\":47270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2023.2259548\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking & Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2023.2259548","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

【摘要】主动开放思维和认知反思的性格指标都能预测冲突问题的推理准确性。在这里,我们调查了它们对元推理的相对影响。为此,我们使用比率偏差任务测量推理准确性和元推理性能的两个指标-冲突检测灵敏度和元推理辨别力。我们的主要预测因素是积极开放的思维和认知反思,计算能力、认知能力和意识实例化是控制因素。与认知反思相比,积极开放思维能更好地预测推理准确性和元推理辨析,是唯一能显著预测冲突检测敏感性的性格指标。因此,对偏见推理和元推理的敏感性可能更好地体现在推理者进行开放思维的能力上,而不是他们进行反思性思维的能力上。本研究获得了弗林德斯大学教育、心理与社会工作学院HDR研究奖的支持。作者要感谢Matthew Christian和Olivia Burton对本文早期草稿的反馈。sh.w.s.和m.m.a.构思了这项研究。h.w.s.编写了实验程序并收集了数据。h.w.s.和p.w.分析了数据。h.w.s.和G.E.B共同撰写了手稿,p.w.进行了重要的编辑。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。数据可用性声明数据可在Open Sciences Framework: https://osf.io/jm63r/?view_only=15070473806541548adc224496c86660公开获取
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Open-minded and reflective thinking predicts reasoning and meta-reasoning: evidence from a ratio-bias conflict task
AbstractDispositional measures of actively open-minded thinking and cognitive reflection both predict reasoning accuracy on conflict problems. Here we investigated their relative impact on meta-reasoning. To this end, we measured reasoning accuracy and two indices of meta-reasoning performance – conflict detection sensitivity and meta-reasoning discrimination – using a ratio-bias task. Our key predictors were actively open-minded thinking and cognitive reflection, and numeracy, cognitive ability, and mindware instantiation were controlled for. Actively open-minded thinking was a better predictor of reasoning accuracy and meta-reasoning discrimination than cognitive reflection, and was the only dispositional measure to significantly predict conflict detection sensitivity. Thus, susceptibility to biased reasoning and meta-reasoning may be better captured by a reasoner’s ability to engage in open-minded thinking than by their ability to engage in reflective thinking.Keywords: Meta-reasoningindividual differencesbias susceptibilitythinking dispositions AcknowledgmentsThis research was supported by an HDR Research Award from the College of Education, Psychology and Social Work at Flinders University. The authors would like to thank Matthew Christian and Olivia Burton for their feedback on an earlier draft of this manuscript.Author contributionsH.W.S and M.M.A conceived the study. H.W.S programmed the experiment and collected the data. H.W.S and P.W analyzed the data. H.W.S and G.E.B co-wrote the manuscript and P.W made critical edits.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.Data availability statementThe data are publicly available at Open Sciences Framework: https://osf.io/jm63r/?view_only=15070473806541548adc224496c86660
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Thinking & Reasoning
Thinking & Reasoning PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.50%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
The skeptical import of motivated reasoning: a closer look at the evidence When word frequency meets word order: factors determining multiply-constrained creative association Mindset effects on the regulation of thinking time in problem-solving Elementary probabilistic operations: a framework for probabilistic reasoning Testing the underlying structure of unfounded beliefs about COVID-19 around the world
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1